Originally Posted by
Trollkiller
If the disclosures were mandatory there would be no need for a shield law. The fact that the government can't force a business to turn over records without a warrant is the whole purpose for the shield laws. (Note: certain businesses have statutory requirements that force records inspections without a warrant, such as firearms dealers.)
Think about it, most companies would be more willing to give the police business records without a warrant if they knew that they were suit proof when doing so.
You company may respond with "get a warrant" but most do not and are not required to.
In your mind you think that company records are in some way statutorily required to remain private when it comes to a law enforcement request.
If that were the case any information gathered by that police officer by that request would not be permissible because the officer has knowingly caused the company to break the law.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.
We get information all the time from private companies. TK is right - if it were protected information then the evidence would be excluded. Defense attorneys would quash that ricky-tick. They would if they could, but they can't so they don't. It's not protected information.
I could not use evidence that your lawyer provided me. It's protected. It would be excluded. I can use evidence the airline provides me. It's not protected. Big difference.